[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[TheGoverness]

One gay person does not speak for the whole group. There could be gays who got married so as to produce children. Furthermore, this is not "societal oppression".

One gay person does not speak for the entire group, but it doesn't change the fact that a lot of gay people got into straight relationships due to societal pressure against being gay. Yes, that is a result of societal oppression, because intolerance bred that kind of result. Which is why it's much more beneficial that gay people are able to come out more freely.

 

[TheGoverness]

This goes beyond gay couples choosing to use the word 'marriage" in a certain way. They want to change our laws.

Great. I'm rejecting both of your stupid conclusions about homosexuality and marriage, because neither one of you has the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

 

[TheGoverness]

My own (limited) understanding about this matter. And yes, the source of my knowledge is personal in nature, but that does not mean I base it in anecdotes.

If it's personal, it is therefore anecdotal.

 

[TheGoverness]

So what that he would pout? Isn't this just another sign to you and your ilk that people are naturally put off by gays and by extension their gay ways? The fact gay "marriage" is now legal does not alter people's natural aversion to gays in any way.

People do not have a "natural" aversion to gays.

 

[blarg]

So what that he would pout? Isn't this just another sign to you and your ilk that people are naturally put off by gays and by extension their gay ways? The fact gay "marriage" is now legal does not alter people's natural aversion to gays in any way.

i don't mind gay people i would prefer not see people like you

not that sure you have a problem with gay people but pretending to seems rather unpleasant as well

 

[dixon01767]

1.) no its not. they are factually NOT identical by definition law and rights. you can lie about that all you want but thats all it will ever be. ignorance or a lie, pick one
2.) false a California marriage is recognized by the federal government and recognized in all 50 states, a California civil union was not.

Read carefully

they had same sex unions identical to same sex marriages

"had", past tense, being the operative word. Back when the Federal DOMA was in place California same sex marriages were identical to California same sex unions. Its like you dont even read what you choose to respond to. You just blurt out "false" or "no its not" when you havent even a clue as to what you are babbling on about.

 

[AGENT J]

Read carefully


"had", past tense, being the operative word. Back when the Federal DOMA was in place California same sex marriages were identical to California same sex unions. Its like you dont even read what you choose to respond to. You just blurt out "false" or "no its not" when you havent even a clue as to what you are babbling on about.

LMAO i read that part just fine and the fact remains they were not "identical" . . no matter how much you claim they were they were not . . . . thanks again for factually proving you are monumentally uneducated on this topic.
Civil union = /= marriage

 

[dixon01767]

Not sure how this amounts to 'rubbing people's faces into' anything.

I didnt claim it was.

 

[dixon01767]

So then anyone not married is being discriminated against?

Yes, when unequal treatment is applied.

 

[dixon01767]

Who is the victim of this "discrimination?" How are they victims?

Anyone who is denied the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage. I know a wealthy man who had lived with his younger brother the last 30 years of his life, left his entire estate to his brother after paying $800,000 in estate tax. The Federal DOMA case was about a lesbian couple who had to pay a couple 100,000 in estate taxes when one of them died, who got it all back after the case was decided.

 

[dixon01767]

LMAO i read that part just fine and the fact remains they were not "identical" . . no matter how much you claim they were they were not . . . . thanks again for factually proving you are monumentally uneducated on this topic.
Civil union = /= marriage

Point to one single diference other than the word marriage. Because the only difference youve identified was based upon your mistaken belief that the federal govenment recognized California same sex marriages at the time when in fact they did not.

 

[AGENT J]

Point to one single diference other than the word marriage. Because the only difference youve identified was based upon your mistaken belief that the federal govenment recognized California same sex marriages at the time when in fact they did not.

Thats the whole point

this waas YOUR post!!!

In California they had same sex unions identical to same sex marriages and the gays and their advocates boo hooed our constitutional rights are violated if we don't get the word marriage.

its factually wrong, thanks again for proving it

 

[JasperL]

This goes beyond gay couples choosing to use the word 'marriage" in a certain way. They want to change our laws.

Oh, how DARE THEY!!! Gay people having independent political preferences, and wanting to change (unknown) laws in (unknown) ways, and publicly expressing their political views!! THIS SHALL NOT STAND!!

 

[JasperL]

I didn't say you did. But you dismissed what Dixon said just because he is straight.

My point is that a straight person's observation about gays can still be correct. One should not outright reject what a straight person says just on the grounds of his not being a gay insider.

No, not just because he is straight. "Seems to me that among gay men in their 40s-50s, or at least the small number I have become acquainted with, that a prior marriage with children seems to be the norm as opposed to the exception."

 

[calamity]

I didn't say you did. But you dismissed what Dixon said just because he is straight.

My point is that a straight person's observation about gays can still be correct. One should not outright reject what a straight person says just on the grounds of his not being a gay insider.

I'm straight, and my observation is that you and Dixon hold views that are both archaic and rooted in ignorance. They also sound a wee-bit hateful, to put it mildly.

 

[TheGoverness]

This goes beyond gay couples choosing to use the word 'marriage" in a certain way. They want to change our laws.

What? Gay people actually want to have equal benefits under the law? The horror!

 

[TheGoverness]

I do not care whether gays are "getting brought up" yadda yadda. But you like to rub gay-dom in people's faces a lot. It's probably because deep down you know people dislike gays and you want to annoy straight people (aka normal people) as much as possible.

Nobody is rubbing anything in your face. Simply because you do not like the mere existence of gays, and expressing ourselves openly, means nothing. You can walk around with dual eye patches, and clog your ears with tissues, if that will fix your issue. I'm glad my straight friends are normal people, and don't throw a hissy fit when they see a gay person. With most Western nations having accepted LGBT people, along with a majority of the respective population(s), sounds like you need to get a clue.

Also, a same-sex "marriage" is not a real marriage to me.

That's just great. Thankfully, the law no longer is this way. Get used to it.

 

[dixon01767]

Thats the whole point

this waas YOUR post!!!


its factually wrong, thanks again for proving it

No, its still fact, thats why you cant point to a single difference.

 

[dixon01767]

I'm straight, and my observation is that you and Dixon hold views that are both archaic and rooted in ignorance. They also sound a wee-bit hateful, to put it mildly.

If you can locate your nads, quote and respond to MY posts you believe is rooted in ignorance and state why.

 

[dixon01767]

Neither does a straight person who happens to know some small number of gay couples in their 40s and 50s have anything interesting to say about the gay community. I'll trust the experience and opinions of people in the gay community over a straight person obviously ignorant about the gay community. YMMV of course.."

I made no assertion regarding the gay community and we can see where the ignorance resides.

 

[AGENT J]

No, its still fact, thats why you cant point to a single difference.

nope its still factual wrong hence why you are posting lies and you cant prove otherwise. You made the claim you have to back it up with facts that make it true . . much to my delight you cant
heres your statment

In California they had same sex unions identical to same sex marriages and the gays and their advocates boo hooed our constitutional rights are violated if we don't get the word marriage.

Still 100% factually wrong, disagree step up to the plate back up your claim and factually prove otherwise, thanks!

 

[JasperL]

Anyone who is denied the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage. I know a wealthy man who had lived with his younger brother the last 30 years of his life, left his entire estate to his brother after paying $800,000 in estate tax. The Federal DOMA case was about a lesbian couple who had to pay a couple 100,000 in estate taxes when one of them died, who got it all back after the case was decided.

OK, so we don't have kids, and we're "discriminated!" against because I cannot take claim deductions or credits for children we don't have! I'm a victim of DISCRIMINATION!!

The estate tax is intended to tax the transfer of wealth, so it's not "discrimination" when that tax is levied and payable at death. Congress wrote an exception to the law for spouses, so I guess if people think they are entitled under the constitution to marry their brothers, they should attempt to marry their brother, then file a lawsuit when they are denied that opportunity. Has nothing to do with SSM.

 

[dixon01767]

Anyone who is denied the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage. I know a wealthy man who had lived with his younger brother the last 30 years of his life, left his entire estate to his brother after paying $800,000 in estate tax. The Federal DOMA case was about a lesbian couple who had to pay a couple 100,000 in estate taxes when one of them died, who got it all back after the case was decided.

OK, so we don't have kids, and we're "discriminated!" against because I cannot take claim deductions or credits for children we don't have! I'm a victim of DISCRIMINATION!!

No, try reading what you just quoted.

 

[JasperL]

Read carefully

"had", past tense, being the operative word. Back when the Federal DOMA was in place California same sex marriages were identical to California same sex unions. Its like you dont even read what you choose to respond to. You just blurt out "false" or "no its not" when you havent even a clue as to what you are babbling on about.

If they were "identical" civil unions would have been recognized like "marriages" in all 50 states, but were not. If they were identical, civil unions would have been recognized by the feds, but they were not. And they weren't identical - see FN 24

 

[JasperL]

No, try reading what you just quoted.

I did read it and responded.

"The estate tax is intended to tax the transfer of wealth, so it's not "discrimination" when that tax is levied and payable at death, as Congress intended. Congress wrote an exception to the law for spouses, so I guess if people think they are entitled under the constitution to marry their brothers, so they can avoid estate tax at the first brother's death, they should attempt to marry their brother, then file a lawsuit when they are denied that opportunity. Has nothing to do with SSM."

You're claiming that distinctions in the law that entitle some identified group to special tax breaks but not others is a form of "discrimination." That's either not true or is so routinely done in 1,000 different ways in the tax laws without objection that the 'discrimination' charge is meaningless, because everything in the IRC is a form of DISCRIMINATION! because it's a series of laws that treat some transactions different than others.